Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    A million times more likely? Only if you are talking about the blind laces seller who committed a very similar attack on a woman near Spitalfields market a few weeks later.


    Yes, I can just 'see' him groping around asking Martha to holds still while he 'gets his eye in'!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

      You wrote:

      "... CAL insisted that the sound of footsteps carried clearly..."

      I consider that shocking.

      M.
      Cal said that had anyone left the body after he got into Buck's Row he must have heard him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        Hi Abby,

        Why cover the wounds when someone suddenly appears who will be at the body in a minute or two? The same reason you might not run off immediately: to forestall a hue and cry. It would have been an instinctive action that took a second or so.

        For me Nichols was CAL’s first murder, so all talk about a signature or how criminals typically behave is of little value.


        Gary
        Hi Gary
        Why cover the wounds when someone suddenly appears who will be at the body in a minute or two? The same reason you might not run off immediately: to forestall a hue and cry. It would have been an instinctive action that took a second or so.
        agree.

        For me Nichols was CAL’s first murder, so all talk about a signature or how criminals typically behave is of little value.
        well i got millwood and tabram as the rippers first victims, so by nichols he may have come to enjoy the shocking the public thing.
        and if you lend any credence to the torsoripper (as I do), then even more so.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

          Cal said that had anyone left the body after he got into Buck's Row he must have heard him.
          Yes. Well done.

          M.
          Last edited by Mark J D; 02-16-2022, 03:35 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

            Yes, I can just 'see' him groping around asking Martha to holds still while he 'gets his eye in'!
            As you should, because unless the press reports were fictional, it happened to another woman on 8th September.

            A punch or a whack over the head and the victim is floored and at her attacker’s mercy. Don’t forget, by the way, that the GYB landing was unlit, so being sighted wouldn’t have been much of an advantage.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

              Cal said that had anyone left the body after he got into Buck's Row he must have heard him.
              So Lechmere must have been already stationary by the body when Paul turned into Buck’s Row?

              This is an innocent question. My grasp of the distances involved is a bit hazy these days.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                So Lechmere must have been already stationary by the body when Paul turned into Buck’s Row?

                This is an innocent question. My grasp of the distances involved is a bit hazy these days.
                I have always assumed that CAL was saying he heard nothing in front of him, whereas Paul was behind him. I don't see any necessary connection between his comment and the relative position of Paul. His comment that he "must" have heard retreating footsteps, suggests that he must also have easily heard approaching footsteps, which suggests to me that he was aware that Paul was approaching before he saw him. In that case, he may well have waited for him. Certainly, if he must have heard retreating footsteps, then he must have heard Paul in plenty of time to scarper if that was his wish.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                  The thing that still has me wondering is that he told the inquest that he would have heard somebody moving away, had there been anybody, and that this statement involved the risk of provoking a question like: "Why, then, didn't you hear Paul?". However, instead saying that he actually did hear someone moving away would have involved the risk of the very same question being asked.

                  Is there evidence that CAL said he didn't hear Paul?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                    Is there evidence that CAL said he didn't hear Paul?
                    No, there isn't, DW. But it seems he didn't hear him before he stopped walking, at which point Paul was about 40 yards away from him, according to the evidence.
                    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      As you should, because unless the press reports were fictional, it happened to another woman on 8th September.

                      A punch or a whack over the head and the victim is floored and at her attacker’s mercy. Don’t forget, by the way, that the GYB landing was unlit, so being sighted wouldn’t have been much of an advantage.
                      keep 'em coming - i'm sure you've got more priceless nuggets like this up your sleeve

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                        No, there isn't, DW. But it seems he didn't hear him before he stopped walking, at which point Paul was about 40 yards away from him, according to the evidence.
                        There is , as far as I am aware, no evidence whatever that even suggests that CAL was unaware that Paul was approaching. In fact, CAL said that if there was someone moving off in Buck's Row he must have heard him. How could he be so absolutely certain that he must have heard footsteps in front of him? One obvious answer is because, in the silence of the night, he could clearly hear the footsteps behind him. Otherwise he would be guessing, but he wasn't guessing, he said he was certain. So, my guess is that he heard Paul's footsteps behind him, and waited a short time for him to appear. Ok, of course I could be wrong, but if so, how could CAL be so certain?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                          keep 'em coming - i'm sure you've got more priceless nuggets like this up your sleeve
                          Please explain. Are you saying you have a suspect who committed an attack that is closer in its details to the one on Tabram?



                          Comment


                          • >>I was and still am genuinely interested in knowing if there are any unsurmountable reasons for Lechmere not to have said such a thing, but so far I haven't seen anything that convinced me.<<

                            For a guilty Lechmere to have said he thought he saw or heard someone further down the street ahead of him was a win/win scenario.

                            It planted the suggestion that someone was there before him.

                            If someone came forward and said they had been in the street, all attention then turned to them.

                            He would have gone to the inquest knowing Paul had already thrown Mizen under the bus, labelling the PC as disinterested.

                            There is no version of this scenario I can think of that has a downside for a guilty Lechmere. It is a telling indication of likely innocence.
                            dustymiller
                            aka drstrange

                            Comment


                            • There are significant differences between Mrs Tabram murder and Mrs Nichols.

                              Knocked unconscious.
                              No neck cut.
                              Clothing ripped up.
                              Stab wounds not slashes.
                              Not killed in the street.
                              Different weapon.

                              It's a big leap to claim there is a pattern before Chapman. Even then, the only similar attack is Cathrine Eddowes. Two doesn't make a pattern.

                              Because she was the only victim wearing stays, Mrs Nichols killer had to mutilate one handed, the other hand holding the stays and the clothing up. There is no real evidence that anything was hidden by anything other than simply dropping the stays and clothing.

                              To "display" the cuts, the stays would have to be removed or cut away, this would have to be done before any wounding to the body.

                              I think we can pretty much rule out any intention to "display" the wounds as it is incompatible with the available evidence.
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                                ... Because she was the only victim wearing stays, Mrs Nichols killer had to mutilate one handed, the other hand holding the stays and the clothing up. There is no real evidence that anything was hidden by anything other than simply dropping the stays and clothing. To "display" the cuts, the stays would have to be removed or cut away, this would have to be done before any wounding to the body.
                                Revisionism Alert: this stuff about Nichols' stays is wrong.

                                M.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X